What type of damage is this?

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Originally from The Legend of Sardior web article http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20030124a



Light: This cone of brilliant light extends out 70 feet and deals 36d6 points of damage (Reflex DC 58 half). Any creature that fails its Reflex save is also blinded for 1d4 rounds.

Is this heat, untyped, or what?

I am trying to add this as a new 15th Level Breath Effect for DFAs.

[Khedrac]

Light

Yes, "Light" is a damage category in its own right. There are not many thing that use it, but enough do that is exists.

I think (afb) that the Spell Compendium spell Radiant Assault is another example of damage with the "Light" type.

[Eldan]

Was it ever named as such? Because it doesn't say "light damage", it just says damage. I know there are a few "light ray"-like things, like Lantern archons, that deal untyped damage, but that doesn't make it a type.

[HighWater]

Yes, it is Light damage (like the others are Force and Fire).

Some creatures are outright immune to any harmful effects from light, natural or supernatural, such as the Vasuthant (MM3) which has Immunity to Light (Ex). At least the Vasuthant is even immune to the ill-defined Light Ray the Lantern Archon wields, because it's explicitly made of light even if nobody called it Light damage.

[nedz]

RAW (From the article):

The Force breath does Force damage
The Fire breath does Fire damage
The Light breath damage is untyped

[HighWater]

RAW (From the article):

The Force breath does Force damage
The Fire breath does Fire damage
The Light breath damage is untyped

True.

It's still specified as Light/light though, so anything immune to Light/light will still ignore it even though it's untyped.

Technically, it has no type (I presume because they forgot to add it originally, in spite of spells like Sunbeam and the Lantern Archon) but specific immunity to it does exist (see Vasuthant), so... That's pretty murky rules-stuff for something involving lots of light. :smallamused: Means you can't pick "light" for various change damage-type tricks though, so I guess that's good.

[Red Fel]

Let's be clear on one more point. "Light" may be a source of damage, like "Force" is, but neither one is an energy descriptor (the way Fire, Cold, Electricity and Acid are).

So as HighWater mentioned, you can't use certain types of damage-type mechanics on a "Light"-damage spell. In terms of energy descriptors, it is effectively untyped.

[nedz]

Let's be clear on one more point. "Light" may be a source of damage, like "Force" is, but neither one is an energy descriptor (the way Fire, Cold, Electricity and Acid are).

So as HighWater mentioned, you can't use certain types of damage-type mechanics on a "Light"-damage spell. In terms of energy descriptors, it is effectively untyped.

Except that Light is a Descriptor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor), except in this case.

[Red Fel]

Except that Light is a Descriptor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor), except in this case.

Light is a descriptor. It is not an energy descriptor. Important (if hypertechnical) distinction.

[nedz]

Light is a descriptor. It is not an energy descriptor. Important (if hypertechnical) distinction.

Well the Force breath has the Force descriptor whilst the Light breath has no descriptor.
Neither is an energy descriptor but there are game effects relating to both.

Maybe this is a mild dysfunction, only I can't tell which way ?

[HighWater]

Well the Force breath has the Force descriptor whilst the Light breath has no descriptor.
Neither is an energy descriptor but there are game effects relating to both.

Maybe this is a mild dysfunction, only I can't tell which way ?
I was wondering the same, but it is hard to pinpoint... I might have found an argumentation though.
I feel it's very weak, but that may be just because I'd never let it fly at my table, the RAI is too clear:

The Vasuthant's text goes:
Immunity to Light (Ex): Unlike many other undead creatures, a vasuthant is immune to any harmful effects of light, either natural or magical. All cleric spells of the Sun domain as well as other spells with the light descriptor (such as daylight) produce no adverse effects on a vasuthant.

The Vasuthant should be immune to the breath weapon, because the breath weapon is specifically described as a "cone of brilliant light", in spite of the missing Light descriptor. It's also (Su), so it's magical and falters against the blanket protection of the first half of the Immunity to Light (Ex). Still, the light descriptor is very clearly missing from the Breath Attack.

I think it becomes more dysfunctional when considering a Light Archon vs the Vasuthant. The Light Archon's attack:

Light Ray (ex): A lantern archon's light rays have a range of 30 feet. This attack overcomes damage reduction of any type.

If you're going evil literal genie, you can consider light rays the plural of light ray, which would just be the name of the attack, not a description of the effect... Still, turns out you don't need that, the trick lies in the (Ex). An (Ex) is both not natural (it may break the laws of physics) and also nonmagical. It's also not a spell in the Sun Domain or with the light descriptor. That Vasuthant seems boned by RAW, even if the RAI seems clear it shouldn't be.

It seems like two dysfunctions:
- There are spells and attacks that are obviously based on pure light, yet lack the light descriptor.
- The Vasuthant is "Immune to Light (Ex)", but can be hit by an attack called "Light Ray (Ex)"...